The Observation Deck

To Download Click Below
http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/issue_pdfs/Observer_Vol_07_Issue_12.pdf

Good Morning Lakewood!

Well according to our records this is issue 150!

And while it does mark a milestone, we have only started to get this project rolling, and we do have some nice but small changes which will be rolling out over the summer.

As we get closer to the Fourth-of-July it does bring back visions of 3, then 5, then 10, then 20 Lakewoodites gathered around tables for almost a year wondering if it could even happen. There was no reason to think we could pull this off, after all, what was our background? What made us think we could do what the large corporations could not? After all, all we had were a multi- award winning library director, one of the more successful printers in Cleveland, and a multi-award winning designer behind the project. What made us think we could serve the need we saw in Lakewood getting filled. At the time, the Sun Papers had all but left, West Life gone, The Plain Dealer gone except for crime. Yeah looking back is both fun and odd. But enough, we will cover much of this in our next issue.

This issue brings us all sorts of great news. Mary Anne Crampton, the heart and soul of the LakewoodAlive, Mainstreet, Downtown Business Alliance, LCPI, Spooky Pooch, Front Porch Concerts, Farm Markets, Light Up Lakewood, pARTy, and so much more, finally gets the recognition she deserves, by winning the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce's Business Person of the Year Award. So long overdue. Last week I was talking with other winners, Mickey Krivosh and Parnell Eagen, who turned the tiara over to me, when I won. We were all happy for her, and none of us could think of anyone more deserving of the award the Mary Anne, who is the director of LakewoodAlive, a 501C3 organization that has been given the credit for the rebirth of Lakewood's vibrant Downtown District.

But enough about Mary Anne, this is yet another issue dedicated to the Lakewood Chataqua Festival, and what a party that is looking to be with action all over the city for most of an entire week. Make sure to take some time, and check it out. Lakewood Historical Society and their members in charge of this promise it will be an experience not to be missed. Friday Night movies are back, LEAF Wednesday Nights are back, Lakewood Observer Community meetings are still going on, and soon the Lakewood Library Front Porch Concerts will be letting us rock out with a great line-up put together by Lakewood's music maestro Chris Vance. Yeah it is looking to be a great summer in and around Lakewood, Ohio.

So please take the time and check out this issue of the paper, stop by online, where Lakewoodites actually engage in discussions. Stop by one of our outreach sessions at the Beck, join us for upcoming parties at Three-Birds, West End, Phantasy, bela dubby, The Lake House, Jammy Buggars, and other spots in and around Lakewood, and please step up and tell us what you are thinking, what you care about, what you like and don't like in Lakewood. Together, through collobration, and positive movement we can enact change, and help Lakewood become all it can be and more.

As always, thank you to my crew, especially Margaret, Mel, Betsy and Deb, they all have their specialities and they are all incredible women to work with and take orders from. To everyone else working on this Observer or other Observers: your words, time and effort are making a difference.

Peace/Love


.

Jim:

I was just reading the pdf of the latest Observer that you linked here. I have a serious question for you, that no doubt you will take as a personal attack. That is not my intention, but here goes:

The Detroit Theater/McDonald's letter by the Mayor on page 3. You placed a picture to accompany the letter of the photoshop that you or someone else created. I am assuming it is you because you posted it in the thread here on the Deck.

That picture is obviously not the proposed design. Yet, there is no mention near the picture that this is a 'joke' photoshopped pic. It's one thing to place it here on the Deck without disclaimers (something you also did in the thread about the new CVS at Arthur, and I also did not agree with it there), but quite another to place it in the publication of the Observer.

My question to you is- how can you justify this misleading tactic? First, it is most likely NOT the proposed design. Second, it is not mentioned in the paper that it is not real. Additionally, did you get the Mayor's approval to run this fake pic with his letter? I would think he may get some undue outrage or criticism based on this incorrect pic alone.

How does one wear his/her journalistic hat in one moment and take it off the next when it suits them? Is there not some sort of journalistic ethic that might apply here? Or does that not apply to The Observer and its 'mission?'

Is the Observer a hyper local newspaper or a a few people clowning around in the back room with Photoshop?

Personally, I think running this pic in the Observer could possibly cheapen the mission of the paper as well as calling into question its overall journalistic integrity. Stuff like this is no better than the Bat Boy in the latest Enquirer at the Giant Eagle check out.

Valerie Molinski wrote:
Is the Observer a hyper local newspaper or a a few people clowning around in the back room with Photoshop?

Personally, I think running this pic in the Observer could possibly cheapen the mission of the paper as well as calling into question its overall journalistic integrity. Stuff like this is no better than the Bat Boy in the latest Enquirer at the Giant Eagle check out.

Val


I am kind of surprised over this. I mean I realize that I often seem to upset you, and that
at times I feel even if I could walk on water it would be too fast, too slow, too deep, too
shallow, whatever. But in this forum you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you
are actually encourage to share.

But did you read the mayor's letter?

I believe the illustration is a perfect compliment to Mike's letter. After all he basically
states that all is left to talk about is where the drive through is, where trash is and what
the outside of the building could look like. To me this is but one of many ideas of what
the outside could look like, if we wanted to keep an older more nostalgic feel to the
building. On top of that I also changed the date stamp to 1/31/2012 so that people could
see what yet another idea might look like.

As always, sorry to offend, and would love to see you at an Observer meeting so that we
could discuss the LO Mission statement and mission and how we could all best serve it
and this city.

.

Hmmm, I just cannot buy that explanation/justification for the 'rendering' that is most likely wholly inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the potential site outcome. More importantly, the fact that it is not labeled as to what it is (read: one person's late night photoshop doodling) is the worst part.

I am slightly horrified that you do not see the problem with its inclusion in the latest LO.

I honestly didn't see anything wrong with the picture. I would go on in my post but I don't want to upset anyone. (I am in a mood.....)

Valerie Molinski wrote:Hmmm, I just cannot buy that explanation/justification for the 'rendering' that is most likely wholly inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the potential site outcome. More importantly, the fact that it is not labeled as to what it is (read: one person's late night photoshop doodling) is the worst part.

I am slightly horrified that you do not see the problem with its inclusion in the latest LO.

Val

Not trying to sell anything. Just trying to explain it. I am sure it does not help that it was also
seen by at least 6 sets of editorial eyes, besides mine.

I see no problem with it being in the Observer, while I admit a caption always help, I have
to believe that the staff who I work for on production day, also saw nothing wrong with it.

But am I surprised that you are "horrified"?

No

I would really encourage you to attend one of Margaret's meetings.

Thank you for participating.

peace

I had the same reaction as Valerie. This is the type of thing that keeps me wondering what the print version is supposed to be, a newspaper, a collection of opinions maybe a collection of info-pinions. I dunno.

If the photo followed the same rules as the Deck, with a real name tied to the photo, it wouldn't have struck me as so wrong.

Dave Mechenbier wrote:I had the same reaction as Valerie. This is the type of thing that keeps me wondering what the print version is supposed to be, a newspaper, a collection of opinions maybe a collection of info-pinions. I dunno.

If the photo followed the same rules as the Deck, with a real name tied to the photo, it wouldn't have struck me as so wrong.

Dave

Both the paper, and the website are interesting creatures. Neither were meant to be "news
papers" though they do carry news. They were created as vehicles to get a variety of
information out, help vet that information, can create positive forces from that information.

It had come from a period of time, where you could not trust "official" sources, and that
the "official" sources took great pride in getting "reporters" to simply reprint, what they
spew, and hide behind the perception of hard hitting journalistic integrity that vanished
decades ago.

That in a community, there is room, for news, discussion, humor and that none are really
tragically hurt by them, as long as no one takes themselves so seriously. However as we
have found out in the 8+ years, that is not entirely true, yet the project continues, and is
refined but what we find here and in other communities.

While I am kicking it with Val, please be assured I am taking her comments seriously, and
you raise some excellent points.

But I have to go back and ask, what was the harm, of something we all knew was
retouched, being in an article that was not sent in by Mike Summers, but a resident that
wanted others to know about the event?

I ask, because it was 1:10am production night, and we had a small whole to fill and I was
looking for something I could fill it with in minutes. I had the image of the theater, it had
appeared in other stories, and threw it together in minutes. To illustrate what was mentioned
in the letter. Various ideas about color, where, how, etc. The very thins being talked about
at the meeting. I have been involved in magazine and newspaper production for decades
and cannot think of one time, or publication, where that would be out of line for illustrating
the letter. I am not even convinced the PD, Sun, or other news sources would not use it.

However, you and Val are correct, a caption would have done wonders for all. But I cannot
understand the "outrage." It was not sold as "actual drawing" the date is 2012. No one
thought it was an actual photo.

But thanks for the note, and for taking notice.

.

Dave Mechenbier wrote:I had the same reaction as Valerie. This is the type of thing that keeps me wondering what the print version is supposed to be, a newspaper, a collection of opinions maybe a collection of info-pinions. I dunno.

If the photo followed the same rules as the Deck, with a real name tied to the photo, it wouldn't have struck me as so wrong.

Hi Dave,

The Lakewood Observer, the printed version, is a community-written newspaper, which means all of the articles are written voluntarily by members of the community.

Look at the current issue: Front page lead story written about the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce’s Business person of the year. Another written about
the Chautauqua Event, written by a person working on that. A picture of LHS’s girls rugby team that finished fifth in the nation, submitted by Lakewood schools.

Page two is a calendar with events submitted from organizations all over town. Page three is a reprint of a flyer that went out from Mayor Summers to the neighborhood around the Detroit Theater, which was submitted by a resident to be shared with the rest of the city. A photo-shopped photo showing what a possible McDonalds that took advantage of the theater location would look like accompanies it. If you read the Mayor’s letter, you see that this is an issue that is under discussion.

Page four has a resident’s account of the Mayor’s state of the city address, below that, there is an article about a pitch competition called Lakewood Ideation Challenge, written by one of the organizers of this event.

Below that are some pictures from the bike rodeo.

Page Five is a Library Page. The first story is written by a Harding student, about her experience participating in one of the libraries Role playing games that focused on Star Wars. Below that are two articles written by people from the Lakewood Public Library describing events that are coming up. Below that is a funny picture of four fifth graders with fake moustaches, titled “Fifth Graders Prepare for Graduation.” This was submitted by a mom. The fact that the moustaches are fake was not explained, but the reader is expected to smile and think for a moment about the fact that the fifth graders are growing up, and seem to be doing okay with it.

The next page is headed Lakewood Schools and features two stories by Christine Gordillo, the PR person for Lakewood schools, about LHS students conducting a study about AIDS and about Garfield students and teachers donating hair. The third story is about Brownies and how they’ve donated cookies for soldiers.

The next page is also about schools, the lead story is one of the Commencement speeches by a LHS student, the next story is the Commencement Address given by their Commencement speaker, President of the School Board, Matt Markling.

Further into the paper are three pages devoted to opinions, headed “Perspectives” and “Opinion.” There’s an article about not wanting a McDonalds in your neighborhood, one about rising to challenges that are difficult, rather than lowering the bar, another written about the gap between rich and poor people, another about the usefulness of “gifted” programs in schools, and finally an article defending capitalism. All of these are written by Lakewood citizens, sharing their opinions with each other, some of them are responding to opinions expressed in the last paper, thus creating a dialogue, which is one of the reasons the paper was created.

It is a newspaper. And it is written by the community, so in some ways, particularly on the opinion pages, it is a collection of opinions. Many articles are written by people who participate in the project they are writing about, who are celebrating or sharing them, so I suppose you could call them “info-pinions.” All of these articles are written by real people, whose biases are clear. This paper is written by Lakewoodites about Lakewood.

It is important that everyone owns their own opinion whether it is written in words or pictures, and your point is valid that that photo should have a credit and a caption. I am one of the volunteer editors of the paper, and am on its voluntary advisory board and we will certainly take this matter to heart, and remedy it. We don’t want any confusion. We want EVERYONE to own his or her own words and ideas, and this thought-provoking picture was the work of Jim O’Bryan. In the future, we volunteer advisors will advise him to put his name on his pictures.

But to demean the amazing work of your neighbors, community organizations, Lakewood students, concerned citizens, by saying, “I dunno WHAT it is” seems really unfair.

I went through the description of what’s on the pages of the paper that came out today to illustrate that it’s not a confusing document. It’s pretty clear what it is and that a lot of hard work and heart has gone into it--a lot of good faith by a lot of concerned citizens who sat down and took their time and energy to share with their community things that they thought were important or interesting.

It is the oldest community-written project in the country, the current editon I just described is its 150th issue, a fact that is shocking. It illustrates the fact that thousands of Lakewood citizens have considered it important enough, week after week, to take the time to share their lives with their neighbors. For free. Free to read. Free to write.

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy

First thank you for the wonderful note.

I actually think all three of you are actually saying the same thing, and let me see if this
is a Jim O'Bryan learning moment.

I put the photo in, it should have had my name on it, and context.

As did every other story we have printed.

That way, with caption, Val would know, it was not already to be built, and with Dave,
had my name been on it, he might have understood better, where it came from.

Points well made.

And here with have the Deck in a nutshell, conversation about the problem, and possibly
a learning moment.

Thanks.


.

I think one thing lost on those who are deeply involved with the LO project is that not everyone is deeply involved in the LO project, let alone know who all the writers, authors, photographers are to understand their connections to the stories, etc they submit. (Perhaps something as simple as putting that in at the end of the story, just like people who write for magazines, papers, etc have a blurb about their connection to whatever they're writing about. There's a byline, but it's not clear that person has any personal connection to what they're writing about or what that connection is)

People deeply involved expect that others in this town of 50,000+ people should automatically know what the project is about, how the paper is written, who the authors are, the level of credibility vs opinion vs somewhere in between, etc.

The fact is, I'm willing to bet most don't get that. And I think the truth can be found just with the small subset here who have continually had to ask the question ever since the project started. I also know others in Lakewood that I know personally that have been confused on what the paper is and I've had to explain it to them.

I'm willing to bet 90% or more of the 50,000+ people in this city see a printed newspaper and have some pre-conceived understanding of what they think it will be based on what it physically is, and that understanding is probably different than those who are deeply involved think it should be.

I'm not making any judgement on the picture either way, I"m just saying that to expect the average Lakewoodite who just picks up the LO to "understand" or "get" the LO perspective is probably not realistic and the editorial staff should approach the way they present content and eventual reader feedback under that microscope instead of assuming someone would immediately get it.

In my experience, it's often hardest for those deeply involved to either make too many assumptions about what others think or to find it difficult to understand how someone would misinterpret something. It's a pretty common danger for any project and it's one I fall into also if I'm not actively trying to counteract this very natural human tendency.

I really think the entire volunteer staff and the contributors work very hard to produce something that I think has tons of value to the community and that shouldn't be overlooked. It may just need some changes to the way things are positioned, etc. to help end some of the confusion and assumptions made by those who aren't as involved.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I really think the entire volunteer staff and the contributors work very hard to produce something that I think has tons of value to the community and that shouldn't be overlooked. It may just need some changes to the way things are positioned, etc. to help end some of the confusion and assumptions made by those who aren't as involved.

Bryan

As always great post. I agree, but we are very aware of our too close problem.

Which is why, we have so many community outreach meetings. So that others can come in
and help us understand what is needed, and how we could better serve. Nothing at the Observer
is cast in stone. It is a project that can bend and change with what the community needs.

I just returned from Collinwood, where their project is taking very different routes than what
the LO is, but through it we will learn and try some new things.

I have purposely left my name off of all of the images I use in the paper. I never wanted
the LO to be my paper, or need it to be self serving. One reason I rarely write. But maybe
it is time for me to start doing that and pushing the publication in a new direction?

As we work to move into our next 150 papers, while launching three new papers, maybe
it is a great time to have a couple meetings to discuss how LO works.

Feel free to stop by next Tuesday, and let me know what you are thinking.

.

Well put Bryan. I think it is interesting to note that while Jim says:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Both the paper, and the website are interesting creatures. Neither were meant to be "news papers" though they do carry news.

Betsy states:

Betsy Voinovich wrote: The Lakewood Observer, the printed version, is a community-written newspaper, which means all of the articles are written voluntarily by members of the community.

So within the project there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what this project is. I know Chris Gordillo works for Lakewood schools but why would one assume all readers know this as well, when she simply has a byline like everyone else? Simply stating she is employed by the school system would indicate the information in her article is information provided on behalf of the schools, not a newspaper article that was written by a reporter who does not have any affiliation with the subject they are writing about. My reluctance to ever contribute to the print edition is that I have worked at "newspapers", have many friends who work at "newspapers" and understand that good reporters have to maintain a certain distance from their subjects to maintain objectivity about their subjects. This is the ideal, often not reached, but that is the goal...to be a dispassionate reporter of events. In my opinion the Lakewood Observer is not a newspaper but an aggregation of community postings, opinion, etc, with content provided by members of the community and vetted to a degree by an editorial board.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I really think the entire volunteer staff and the contributors work very hard to produce something that I think has tons of value to the community and that shouldn't be overlooked. It may just need some changes to the way things are positioned, etc. to help end some of the confusion and assumptions made by those who aren't as involved.

And to this point I couldn't agree more. I think the project makes a valuable contribution to the community. And while it might fill some of the void made through ever-shrinking newsrooms it is no substitute for solid investigative journalism which unforunately is getting harder and harder to find.

Kate

I can assure you everyone at the Observer has a slightly different view of what it should be,
could be, and or is. We have always allowed this latitude within the project, and many think
it is our strength, not our weakness. It seems to come up short only when people decide that
because it is on newsprint it must be a NEWS paper.

To continue on with your last comment. Investigative journalism is gone for the most part
with a possible exception of maybe 5 pages of the Scene, Plain Press, and Calling Post. This
is one of the many things that bother all of us, when we started the Observer. Steve Litt a
tremendous reporter for the Plain Dealer came to do an article on the Robert AM Stern Library,
very quickly it turned into a diatribe of porno, and the need for the county to take it over.
This from the architectural writer for the PD.

One of the very real things everyone at the start-up of the Observer realized was that ALL
reporters carry bias, and that 90% of what you read in print or online, is directly from a
news release. So why not accept that fact, but make the person putting out the hype, take
ownership of the hype. Why let them hide behind a "reporter." What we have found, is that
if the LO allows the person who is passionate about the subject write the story, then we
get a better, more in-depth story, with bias. Seems like a fair trade, especially as we are
willing to push the discussion and allow for the op-ed piece.

In the sports world, you get negative on the Browns, Cavs, Indians, you lose your press
credentials, and your job. In the political world, write a bad piece on Ed FitzGerald, good
luck getting a return phone call, or a follow-up. Recently it has come to light that many of
the new news sources are just more hype, smoke and mirrors. One business plan calls for
them to put others out of business then only carry what you can monetize, forget the rest.
It was this thought that took Lakewood to the point where we opened the Observer. Many
groups, businesses, schools, etc carry news that cannot be monetized. So we started a
project that would allow them to get their information out, and make it sustainable so that
there was a solid base from which people could use and abuse.

I would feel terrible if this was a news project, and we had lied, misrepresented, allowed
ourselves to be used, and retold lies and falsehoods under reporters names. To me that
would be criminal and complicate. While that might be some, it is not the Lakewood Observer, nor any Observer. Matter of fact we have been involved in three projects, that
cut the rights of others to voice their opinions, stories, ideas and complaints, and while
they still exist, they no longer are "Observers."

Yeah this is a different sort of project. One that needs citizens to step up, and take ownership
of their words and ideas. One that rewards those willing to put up, and trust the citizens.
Has always truck me as kind of sad, so many demonize the Observer, and never take one
step to make it better or different as they think it should be.(Not speaking of Val, Bryan,
Dave, yourself or others that post publicly and take me and the paper to task.) In my mind
taking us to task is the right thing to do, it can only help us in the long run, and possible
make the city better as well.

Thanks for the post.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:K
Yeah this is a different sort of project. One that needs citizens to step up, and take ownership
of their words and ideas.

I really think the biggest thing that can be done to clear up any confusion and perception is to simply print the author's affiliation to the subject they're writing about. Have them disclose it as part of the submission process and then use that to attach it to their article.

CItizen's should own their words, but we can't expect everyone knows who all the citizens are and what their affiliations are. There are a lot of people in this town, and I know I definitely get them all confused and certainly don't know all of them.

It's usually the integrity of the articles that people seem confused about and I think not being upfront and disclosing affiliations just gives them the ammo to fuel their perceptions. Take away the ammo so they can put away the gun and we can all just enjoy the LO for what it is.